We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But American cannot resist this transition. We must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries. We must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure, our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

In one dramatic stroke, President Obama has removed any doubts that he intends to break sharply from President George W. Bush’s policies on yet another vital issue — this time repudiating Mr. Bush’s passive approach to climate change.[…] after eight years of inaction, this is a wonderful start.

The president also singled out the issue of climate change, a subject that he raised in his first Inaugural Address but has struggled to make progress on in the face of fierce opposition in Congress and in countries around the world. In his 2009 speech, he warned about environmental threats to the planet; on Monday, he vowed to confront them.

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” he said. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”

Mr. Obama left the details of his second-term agenda for his State of the Union speech in three weeks. But he hinted at the two major legislative battles that he has promised to wage: reform of the immigration system and new laws intended to reduce gun violence.

Note how climate doesn’t make it into the “two major legislative battles” ahead.

slowly wither away, ironically under an AGWer President just as it kept on growing during the 8 years of an anti-AGW White House Resident

In truth, it disappeared completely from the Presidential campaign. Is AGW coming back now? Or are these renewed empty promises a surefire sign the President doesn’t have much of positive he himself believes in his grasp?

When Whitman heard that Bush was wavering on warming, she “broke through the palace guard,” as the president had urged her to do, and marched into the Oval Office. “I wanted to tell him that there were ways to call for a cap on carbon that wouldn’t hamstring the economy,” she says, “and that it was vitally important we not be seen as ignoring the issue of climate change.” But before Whitman could even present her case, the president cut her off. “It was clear the decision had already been made,” she says.

I think that the NRO Editors nailed it in their assessment of BHO v2.0

President Barack Obama, being sworn in for a second term, was doing the thing he does best: giving a speech largely divorced from reality.

[and they conclude:]

Those who were inspired by Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration address did not have a four-year White House record to judge him by. In 2013, that has changed. Unfortunately, little else has: The rhetoric is still soaring, and the country is still stagnating.

President Obama was not being truthful in his speech today about climate change.
# 1) 2012 was NOT the most extreme year for weather in the US (unless you think mild winters are an example of extreme weather.

Maybe even President Obama is aware of the fact that he can no longer blame fossil fuel CO2 emissions for warming the globe. The facts are CO2 has gone up but temperatures have remained flat for 16 years which negates the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that as CO2 rises so do the temperatures.

Unreal right to ignore real world data on temperatures and continue to lie about fossil fuel CO2 emissions responsible for dangerously warming the planet. So he pivots to high CO2 emissions as the reason behind extreme weather, (also a lie), to justify higher taxes Higher taxes will lead to higher energy costs which will hurt the poor the most by the way./ But why should he care if the poor get hurt the most? He’ll get the money he wants to line the pockets of his billionaire crony green capitalists buds with more tax payer dollars so they can waste more money on their failed so called “green energy” boondoggles.

James Delingpole has a good right up on President Obama’s war on reality which I call President Obama’s war on the poor.